The Toxis Assets We Elected

[ChumpDumper]

I agree. The problem here is, that I hate...is this 'too big to fail'...domino effect. Why did they let these banks get that big. That's where I want regulation.

It would be like ...if Southwest had a 3000 plane fleet, (they have about a 400 plane fleet...16% or so of the US market..) and if they failed...well...then air travel would completely halt in the US.

It's just assinine to have banks and financial ins utions so big, that if they fail...well the whole damn global economy melts down.

That's why people are mad at us and WE should be mad at us.

But lets be clear on this...this problem started in the 90's with a democrat president and republican congress. Plenty of blame to go around but more than anyone I would like to see in jail, it's our congress...but I doubt they'll indict themselves.

Just go back to limiting the total deposits any one ins ution can control.

[ChumpDumper]

retroactive is the key word


And name ONE tax code written for one person.

It's difficult to track those down -- it's not like they name the people involved -- but it's really easy to draft a narrow a tax break.

In 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced legislation at the request of Rienzi & Sons, a Queens, N.Y., food importer, according to company president Michael Rienzi. The provision, which became law in December 2004, required the government to refund tens of thousands of dollars in duty charged on imported tomato products, Rienzi told USA TODAY.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...x-breaks_N.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Furthermore, this kind of thing was discussed in the debate over the line-item veto a couple of years ago:

- Tax breaks for special interests protected: The President proposed that he be given the authority to use the line-item veto to strip any spending provision or en lement increase, but could only strip tax break provisions benefitting fewer than 100 people. For example, a tax break that benefits one half of one percent of Americans would be protected, because it benefits more than 100 people. Even that rule wasn’t enough for the House, which decided that tax breaks needed even more protection. The version passed by the House says that only tax breaks benefiting a single person or company can be stripped. Even then, an exception exists whenever the chairmen of the tax-writing committees (the people who write the tax break provisions in the first place) say they think the tax break should be protected from the line-item veto!

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0803-07.htm

[mogrovejo]

I agree. The problem here is, that I hate...is this 'too big to fail'...domino effect. Why did they let these banks get that big. That's where I want regulation.

It would be like ...if Southwest had a 3000 plane fleet, (they have about a 400 plane fleet...16% or so of the US market..) and if they failed...well...then air travel would completely halt in the US.

It's just assinine to have banks and financial ins utions so big, that if they fail...well the whole damn global economy melts down.

That's why people are mad at us and WE should be mad at us.

But lets be clear on this...this problem started in the 90's with a democrat president and republican congress. Plenty of blame to go around but more than anyone I would like to see in jail, it's our congress...but I doubt they'll indict themselves.

That's naif. Regulation is always great to prevent the last crisis, but it always fail to prevent the next one.

Anyway, we'll never know if the banks were "too big to fail" or "too politically connected to fail".

[TDMVPDPOY]

That's naif. Regulation is always great to prevent the last crisis, but it always fail to prevent the next one.

Anyway, we'll never know if the banks were "too big to fail" or "too politically connected to fail".

thats because regulation and higher standards are never improved each year or on a regular basis when something happens which affects regulation. Its like this, why fix something if it aint broke. that .

[101A]

What has the government done thats uncons utional?

According to G.Will:

NAFTA, like all treaties, is the "supreme law of the land." So says the Cons ution. ... House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states," ...

[RandomGuy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032302140.html [george will OP-ED criticizing Obama]

George will good when criticizing D, bad when criticizing Trump. More hypocrisy.